Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Ward, charged with felony possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, moved to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment. He alleged that Raleigh County Sheriff’s Officers arrived at his mother’s residence, questioned him regarding a dispute, and asked him for identification. Ward stated he could retrieve it from “downstairs in [his] mother’s house in the [t]-shirt shop.” Both officers and Ward walked around to the door. Ward opened the door. The officers grabbed the door and followed him in. Ward then walked through another door that led into a separate room used for his t-shirt printing shop. While Ward retrieved his identification, an officer observed a firearm. Ward testified that a person standing at the entryway to the basement door would not have been able to see the firearm because it would have been obscured by two doors and a curtain. The basement was not his residence and there was a lock on the front door. Detective Queen stated that he watched Ward retrieve his identification “[f]or officer safety” although he did not have a specific reason to fear for his safety.The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress. Officers conducted the search and seized the firearm without a warrant; the plain view and officer safety exceptions do not apply. View "State of West Virginia v. Ward" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the sentencing order of the circuit court and remanded this case with instructions to dismiss Petitioner's conviction for malicious assault and resentence him on the remaining charges, holding that the indictment was insufficient because it did not include an essential element of the offense of malicious assault.Before trial, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the malicious assault count of the indictment because it did not reference the intent to "maim, disfigure, disable or kill." The circuit court denied the motion, finding that a person may commit malicious assault (1) by maliciously shooting, stabbing, cutting, or wounding any person; or (2) by any means causing a person bodily injury with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's sentencing order, holding (1) the intent to main, disfigure, disable, or kill is an essential element of the offenses of malicious assault and unlawful assault pursuant to W. Va. Code 61-29; and (2) therefore, the indictment in this case was insufficient. View "State v. Maichle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction of sexual assault in the first degree following a jury trial, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on the offense of attempted sexual assault in the first degree; (2) did not err when it denied Petitioner’s motion for a mistrial regarding a photographic identification; (3) did not abuse its discretion when it denied an in camera hearing on the suggestibility of the pretrial photographic identification; and (4) did not err when it denied Petitioner's motions for a mistrial due to vouching. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court finding that Petitioner violated the conditions of his supervised release and revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to a two-year term in prison, holding that United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. __ (2019), does not apply to a supervised release revocation pursuant to W. Va. Code 61-12-26 because section 61-12-26 does not require a mandatory minimum sentence upon revocation.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the revocation of Petitioner's supervised release pursuant to W. Va. Code 62-12-26 did not violate Petitioner's constitutional rights; (2) the circuit court did not err by denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss the petition or by sentencing Petitioner to a term of imprisonment without holding a jury trial when revoking his supervised release; and (3) the circuit court did not clearly err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner conspired to deliver crack cocaine, in violation of conditions of his supervised release. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court dismissing Petitioner's appeal from his plea of no contest to obstructing an officer on the basis that Petitioner's no-contest plea in magistrate court resolved the case and barred Petitioner from pursuing appellate review in circuit court, holding that the circuit court erred in dismissing the appeal.Petitioner pled no contest in magistrate court to obstructing an officer and attempted to appeal the conviction to the circuit court. The circuit court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that Petitioner's no-contest plea in magistrate court barred him from pursuing appellate review in circuit court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under W.Va. Code 50-5-13(a) a defendant such as Petitioner may timely appeal a conviction in magistrate court to circuit court; and (2) section 50-5-13(a) and (b) afforded Petitioner a trial de novo, to the circuit court, without a jury. View "State v. Folse" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court reversing the final order of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upholding Respondent's administrative driver's license revocation for a period of five years for driving under the influence, holding that the circuit court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the OAH and in using its determination as a basis for overturning the OAH's decision.After a hearing, the circuit court concluded that the OAH improperly weighed results of field sobriety tests against the negative findings of secondary chemical tests and that Respondent's expert's "unrebutted" testimony supported the negative findings of the secondary chemical test. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the OAH's factual determination that Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent had ingested controlled substances impairing his ability to operate a motor vehicle was entitled to substantial deference; and (2) the evidence in this case supported that factual determination. View "Frazier v. Ramadan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the amended sentencing order and the denial of Petitioner's motion for a judgment of acquittal, holding that there was no error in Petitioner's convictions or sentences.Petitioner was convicted of four counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person in a position of trust (counts one through four) and four counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (counts five through eight). Petitioner filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The circuit court corrected Petitioner's sentence as to count four. In these consolidated appeals, Petition raised an ex post facto violation relative to the jury's instruction and, alternatively, sought a reduction in his sentence based on ex post facto principles baed on the fact that his criminal conduct that led to his conviction on count three occurred before the statute was amended to increase the penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in concluding that there was sufficient evidence of sexual abuse after the statutory amendments to subject him to the harsher penalty; and (2) did not err in denying Petitioner's motion for a judgment of acquittal. View "State v. Todd C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Petitioner to ten to twenty-five years' imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual assault, holding that the circuit court's failure to explicitly discuss the mandatory mitigating circumstances listed in W. Va. Code 61-11-23(c) before ordering the final sentence was not prejudicial.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the circuit court failed to consider the "mitigating circumstances" set forth in section 61-11-23(c) and that his sentence was constitutionally disproportionate. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding (1) Petitioner's substantial rights were not affected by the circuit court's failure to acknowledge and consider the statutory mitigating circumstances; and (2) Petitioner's argument that his sentence was constitutionally disproportionate due to his age and mental capacity was unavailing. View "State v. Hall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction of attempt to possess pseudoephedrine in an altered state and remanded this case for further proceedings, holding that the circuit court plainly erred by finding a factual basis for Defendant's no contest plea.Defendant was charged in an indictment with possession of pseudoephedrine in an altered state, a felony. Defendant pled nolo contendere to attempt to possess pseudoephedrine in an altered state and was sentenced to one to three years' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, challenging the circuit court's denial of his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction, holding that the circuit court erred when it found that a factual basis existed for a plea to attempt to commit possession of pseudoephedrine in an altered state where the only evidence was Defendant's possession of completed methamphetamine. View "State v. Finley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's requested writ of mandamus against Respondent, the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, holding that the circuit court erred in denying a writ of mandamus.In his self-represented petition for a writ of mandamus Petitioner asserted that the Commissioner had a duty to "develop a policy directive and/or operational procedure" that was in compliance with W. Va. Code 15A-4-17(i), which was passed during the 2018 legislative session. The circuit court denied the requested writ. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 15A-4-17(i)(2) imposed upon the Commissioner a clear legal duty to adopt a written policy effectuating the purposes of "this subsection," which included the entirety of subsection (i); and (2) Petitioner had no other adequate remedy at law. View "Freeland v. Marshall" on Justia Law